RE: Peter jackson does it again!!!

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: Peter jackson does it again!!!

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Peter jackson does it again!!!

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Peter jackson does it again!!! - 21/2/2010 3:06:13 PM

djalexb

Posts: 16
Joined: 9/2/2008
From: The Dark Side

I second that and PJ only produced it anyway. Neil Blomkamps baby!

(in reply to SpiderBat)

Post #: 91

pathetic - 21/2/2010 7:08:35 PM

a_MUSE_me

Posts: 2
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: S Wales

well at least Empire's sycophantic review will guarantee Peter jackson related exclusives for some time. This reminds me that I was thinking of cancelling my empire subscription...

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 92

4 stars really!? - 21/2/2010 7:14:12 PM

stephenhinton

Posts: 18
Joined: 22/2/2009

I cannot believe Empire is giving this film 4 stars!?

I mean this would have been a perfect first class crime thriller very much like 'Zodiac' but because it tries to become two films with the second part being the 'in-between' and 'after-life' this might have worked in the book because the mind is much more imaginative unfortunately it doesn't work in the film and this provides too much of a distraction and is very much like a jigsaw that doesn't fit. 2**

Anybody agree?

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 93

RE: Really!? - 22/2/2010 1:51:56 AM

empire No. 1

Posts: 123
Joined: 14/2/2010

check out BEAUTIFUL CREATURES. the pinicle of his career. (yes, including LOTR)

(in reply to PsychicClown)

Post #: 94

RE: Really!? - 22/2/2010 1:57:16 AM

empire No. 1

Posts: 123
Joined: 14/2/2010

or is it heavenly? oh well, its his and winslets best!

(in reply to empire No. 1)

Post #: 95

- 22/2/2010 9:40:15 AM

chris wootton

Posts: 382
Joined: 15/9/2006

This is a truly awful film. Terrible performances (Ronan aside) especially from Mark Wahlberg.. the heaven scenes were just shite and apparently in the book Heaven isn't ever described or seen by the reader, Why then does Jackson waste so much time up there is beyond me. Utter balls

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 96

RE: The Lovely Bones - 22/2/2010 5:05:35 PM

glovedassassin

Posts: 7
Joined: 1/6/2009

If it were not for seeing The Wolfman last week this film would probably already be at the top of my "biggest letdown of 2010" list. I had extremely high hopes for this and really feel Jackson misses the key elements in his adaptation. Only at rare occasions did I feel any connection with the characters. Whilst mentionaing characters it is worth noting I felt that almost all of the cast were underused. Susan Sarandon's comic relief isn't funny. Wahlberg's ability isn't tested, he seems to be just getting the scenes done with no particular note. Rachel Weisz and Michael Imperioli might as well not be there at all for how much they were actually used. The ending of the film is my concern, whilst knowing not to expect a big "happily ever after ending" I was expecting something memorable. Instead we get an ending with no heart or emotion. This isn't all Jackson's fault, Sebold has to take some blame for such a poor ending, but Jackson doesn't help
On the good side are the performances of Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci. In particular the murder scene, in this case the build up was fantastic. Rose McIver's performance wasn't too bad either. Jackson's vivid imagery for the "in between world" is very good and held my attention for the most part.
2 star, maybe 2 1/2.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 97

RE: The Lovely Bones - 22/2/2010 8:51:09 PM

hampstead bandit

Posts: 374
Joined: 18/9/2009

I did not know anything about this film, or the original book

I saw it today and thoroughly enjoyed it, its one of the first films for some time where I have been drawn into the film and did not notice time passing

really liked this film, it was fresh, acting was very good (I did not understand previous reviewers commenting that the parents were "too young") and found it quite emotional at the end where the victims all meet up before going to 'heaven'

one of the better films I have seen in the cinema during 2010! 4/5

(in reply to glovedassassin)

Post #: 98

RE: The Lovely Bones - 23/2/2010 12:20:45 AM

Cheeze

Posts: 21
Joined: 23/5/2006

Having not read the book I wasn't too sure what to expect with this film, but I had high hopes for it. I saw it over the weekend and left the cinema feeling let down and disapointed, it wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. I agree with some posts that the ending seemed tagged on and lazy. I thought 2-3/5 stars.

However, a friend of mine hadn't seen it and convinced me to go with him tonight so he could see it. Seeing as I have an unlimited Cineworld card and the wife wanted to catch up on her CSI I thought sod it and went again.

I have to say that upon a second viewing I enjoyed the film much more. I don't know if I just wasn't in the right mood for it at the weekend or what, but I found it much more engaging and enjoyed spotting the little cross overs of objects from the real world to Suzie's 'Inbetween' world. In fact I spotted a couple of references to what was coming at the end of the film that I hadn't realised on the first viewing, so the ending seemed less sloppy the second time round. I won't say more on that so as not to spoil anything. I still think Wahlberg was shite in it though and let down the rest of the cast who in my opinion were great, especially Sarondon and Ronan. So I'm revising my score to 4/5.

If like me you left feeling a bit disapointed but not hating it, give it a second chance sometime.

(in reply to hampstead bandit)

Post #: 99

Unfortunate waste of time - 23/2/2010 9:17:32 AM

maxsmorris

Posts: 26
Joined: 17/1/2006

Very bad review, Empire - totally off the money. I'm a big Peter Jackson fan and expected big things. Unfortunately, this felt like an over-indulgent film experience, one lacking any depth or coherence. Towards the end I was physically squirming at the sheer cheese of the final events and, if it weren't for thinking my wife wanted to watch the rest (which, it turns out, she didn't) I would have left early. I don't know anything about the book but this puts me off reading it, even though it is apparently nothing like it. Having said this, Stanley Tucci is brilliantly creepy with the material he's given and is the only good thing about the film. Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz act like they're remote controlled.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 100

RE: Unfortunate waste of time - 23/2/2010 2:57:06 PM

skeletonjack

Posts: 1297
Joined: 30/9/2005

A wonderful adaption of Sebold's book. Haunting, compelling and memorable in equal measure, Jackson once again shows himself to be a masterful storyteller. Special mention also to Stanley Tucci who puts in a superb turn as Mr Harvey.
4 stars

(in reply to maxsmorris)

Post #: 101

RE: pathetic - 23/2/2010 3:57:49 PM

sephiroth7

Posts: 150
Joined: 14/10/2009

I was considering subscribing til I saw they gave Twilight four stars...WHAT THE FUCK??!!

_____________________________

I will never be a memory.

(in reply to a_MUSE_me)

Post #: 102

RE: pathetic - 23/2/2010 5:37:45 PM

mediarats

Posts: 314
Joined: 28/2/2009
From: some wainscotting

On the 5 Live movie podcast, Nigel Floyd said this film was 'bad taste', and I can see his point.

This is perhaps Jackson's most tasteless film, and from a director who gave us Bad Taste, that's some achievement. He has taken a dark book about child rape, murder, dismemberment, bereavement and grief, and turned it into a sanitised, PG rated, $100m special effects extravaganza. The word 'misjudged' does not even come close.

There is no sense of the devastating trauma that has befallen Susie Salmon. Instead, she finds herself in a wondrous, hyper-saturated CGI afterlife where songbirds flock around her head, and mountains glide around in the background for no adequately explained reason. Her grisly murder has clearly sent her to a much better place. Jackson has thrown a sizeable chunk of WETA Digital behind this film, but all it achieves is to distract from the gravity, tragedy, and human drama that this film might conceivably have given us.

Saoirse Ronan is well cast, with a suitably other-worldly look about her. Stanley Tucci gives us a method exercise in understated creepiness. However, as Susie's parents, Weisz and Wahlberg struggle to make much of their roles, and the less said about Susan Sarandon's comic relief grandmother, the better.

In her closing narration, Susie speaks of the eponymous 'lovely bones' being the burgeoning network of new relationships that have sprung up in her absence, and because of her absence, but Jackson seems to have been oblivious to this. The majority of these relationships appear to have been discarded from the script in order to impose a traditional thriller ending. Take away the special effects, and this is little more than a TV movie of the week.

Evidently Lynne Ramsay was originally going to film this, for Film4, on a fraction of the budget. I suspect she'd have done a far better job.

(in reply to sephiroth7)

Post #: 103

RE: pathetic - 23/2/2010 7:58:18 PM

Dan Hughes

Posts: 14
Joined: 30/4/2006

I had no real inclination to see this but I've enjoyed the Peter Jackson stuff I've seen and so figured it might be okay. I will also admit that my views on the film are possibly poisoned by my fianc�e who was adamant that the book was terrible but here goes.

Overall, I was very disappointed with the film. My main feeling being that by halfway into the film I really didn't care what happened to basically any of the characters. It wasn't that the acting was unconvincing I thought that everyone carried their roles comfortably but from the way the plot was constructed I just had no emotional investment in the characters.

Visually I found the film fascinating, I loved the crossovers between the real world and the in between and thought that most aspects of the in between were fascinating. The real world was also well put together with believable performances and some really well done suspense and horror throughout (especially the rape and murder, though the rape is only made explicit later) but I really felt that the film didn't come together at all and the plot made little sense. Susie swings from blissfully enjoying the in between to being full of rage at her murder and I really struggled to see any real development in this before she seemingly continues to oscillate in her emotions and feelings throughout the film for no real reason. Similarly, the development of the families situation seemed to come out of nowhere, suddenly grandma is necessary, suddenly the family is broken, suddenly it's all back to normal, suddenly in spite of all the horror everyone is fine again.

By the end of the film I wanted Harvey to be caught but more on moral principle than emotional involvement and then the film was over. I understand and appreciate the films ending but,*SPOILERS* with no knowledge of the books ending, felt it would have been better achieved if Harvey had simply escaped rather than the films seeming supernatural justice *END SPOILERS*.

Overall whilst visually stunning and with decent performances the overall film just isn't anything approaching good, and that's much more polite than my fianc�e's feelings who in no way was forced to see it against her will...

(in reply to mediarats)

Post #: 104

rubish - 24/2/2010 12:21:02 PM

Maddogbifftannen

Posts: 15
Joined: 24/10/2006

empire only giving this film 4 because Peter jackson made it. they do this with all big directors for some reason.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 105

An Unforgettable Film - 25/2/2010 2:31:40 AM

Ghibli

Posts: 4
Joined: 23/9/2009
From: Ireland

The Lovely Bones is a brilliant novel and translates into an equally brilliant film. I was disappionted that Abigail and Len Fenermens' affair was not in it however this did not spoil the film much, anyone who didn't enjoy the heaven scenes and imagery must be a very miserable person. My favourite scene is where Susie, in her heaven goes to all the locations of where Mr.Harvey's previous victims bodies are, this was brilliantly done both in book and film. We end up being so emotionally connected with the characters, I even shed a tear at Mr.Harvey's death. Overall it is a haunting and unforgettable film that should stay with you forever.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 106

RE: An Unforgettable Film - 26/2/2010 12:15:01 PM

Gazdance

Posts: 1237
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton

Given the multitude of bad reviews, with Empire's 4 star piece seemingly the only positive voice for the film, I was unsure about what to expect and ultimately felt indifferent about a film I had been interested in seeing.

I was very pleased to disover that The Lovely Bones is a well crafted, moving and uplifting piece of work. Having read the book, it was hard to imagine how much of the novel would translate to the screen. Jackson and Co. have proven again, as they did with The Lord of the Rings, that they know how to adapt something so that it works as a film. I would agree with most of the changes and was even pleased that some things had been left out. The only thing that I wasn't happy with was Susie's possession of Ruth. I don't think it was handled well and to anyone not familiar with the source material may have been confusing.

Given how many styles of flm Jackson is juggling here, I was impressed at how little I felt they jarred against one another. The early part of the film, setting up the Salmon family and Susie's life, her teenage crush on Ray and her future hopes and aspirations is tenderly handled making the fateful journey across the cornfield even more terrifying. I was willing Susie just to walk on and go home and we could have a lovely teenage romance story instead. The scene inside the bunker has to be one of the most tense scenes I have sat through in a long time purely because of and in spite of what I knew was coming. Jackson succeeds in making Mr Harvey a frightening character, from this point and in several other scenes throughout the film, his mere presence is chilling.

For the most part, Susie's 'heaven' is spectacular. There are only one or two scene that the film could have done without as they added nothing to our understanding of the story and felt clumsy and cheesy even though it was meant to help convey the passing of time.

Almost everyone acting in the film puts in a good performance; Saiorse Ronan, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci - all excellent. Mark Wahlberg is good but I wonder what Ryan Gosling would have done with the role. Sadly, Rachel Weisz barely registers but what work she does do is alright.

I found the films suggestion that the spirits of those we love could be watching over us and that there is a place we go to when we die to be really quite moving; the film handles it in a way that suggests that despite all the darkness and horror of the story, there is hope for a happy ending.

Overall, very pleased that I bothered to see this. Looking forward to catching it on Blu Ray.

(in reply to Ghibli)

Post #: 107

RE: An Unforgettable Film - 27/2/2010 12:10:01 AM

ravagee

Posts: 45
Joined: 14/1/2010
From: UK

My name is Salmon. Like the fish. First name Susie.

I wanted to really like this film, there was just something about the hard-hitting story that captured me. In truth, I wanted to be able to see something on the screen that was believable but this just wasn't.

For a start, I do not understand why this film was rated as a 12A? In the first chapter of the book Susie is victimised to rape and murder - the book projected that brutally so you could sense Susie's vulnerability and mistake. The film lacks any of this because it's been fluffed up to make it suitable for parents to drag their kids along (and for the company's to make more money... yipee!).

I, however, did particularly find the visuals and concept of the 'in-between' very engaging. The way the background changed to fit Susie's emotion at least gave you some connection to the frustration of having to watch her family not only cope with the loss of her but the fact her body hasn't been found nor her murderer. Which leads to the cast of this film, I believed they could have worked so much better together if they were given enough time to develop.

That's where the film flaws mainly - in the lack of two of the characters. The first being Abigail Salmon (Rachel Weisz) who's character has really no relevance to the plot even if she is significantly the mother of the dead child. I really like Weisz as an actress and truly believe that she should have been given more screen time. I also believe the character of Ruth should have been given more screen time as she is a very important channel to Susie.

As a whole, I am really sad to say I did not love this film but I really loved the novel and the story.

_____________________________

"The brave may not live forever, but the cautious do not live at all."

If I peed my pants would you pretend that I just got wet from the rain?

(in reply to Gazdance)

Post #: 108

RE: An Unforgettable Film - 27/2/2010 1:22:44 AM

empire No. 1

Posts: 123
Joined: 14/2/2010

jacksons success with rings (though i could easily done without the third) spawned kong then this mess. lets not pretend, bones is, at best, average. time to stop cutting him slack empire, if this were, say, scorsese, 4* would become 3*, no?.....id say its a generous 5/10

(in reply to ravagee)

Post #: 109

RE: Balanced out the average - ha ha - 28/2/2010 12:22:25 PM

GulleyJimson

Posts: 93
Joined: 16/10/2005

4 Stars? Were Empire reviewing the book rather than the movie?

I guess with 'The Hobbit' starting filming soon Empire need to keep on PJ's good side to get their "exclusive" on-set reports.

(in reply to drews)

Post #: 110

- 28/2/2010 4:09:49 PM

TheGodfather

Posts: 5099
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Sin City

The Lovely Bones
Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) gets killed and watches on from an inbetween world between heaven and earth as her family tries to deal with their grief and slowly sees them falling apart.
The result is a bit of strange, uneven mix of drama and thriller. Apart both parts are good. The parts on earth where we see the Salmon family deal with their problems and the part where we see Susie dissapearing are both good seperate. But the part that brings them together, the parts in the inbetweenworld where Susie is after her death, is the least best part of the movie. It feels strange, it doesn`t really work as it should and takes the flow from the story. On the contrary though, it does look absolutely stunning.
With once again really strong performance by the 15 year-old Saoirse Ronan, a truly creepy turn by Stanley Tucci and an ending that is way too sticky, but is featured as such in the book, The Lovely Bones didn`t turn out to be the great film that we expected (and maybe hoped) it would be.

7,3/10

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 111

RE: - 28/2/2010 6:50:50 PM

evil bill

Posts: 6560
Joined: 19/7/2006
From: mordor/ uk

.I watched the movie on Friday night, and i am surprised that it got a 12A!,it has some real unpleasant images like Harvey's muddy bathroom, a bloody sack containing Suzie being thrown into the safe, not to mention the numerous little girls' corpses.Also the high intensity scenes like when Suzie is trapped in the den with Mr. Harvey, and when Lindsay is hiding in his house had my heart racing,it was extremely suspenseful in places.Personally i thought this film was beautifully made, edited, shot and acted but it should have been a 15.The imagery of heaven was excellent,also the dream scenes were really interesting and symbolic and i thought Saiorise Rohnan a true rising star was absolutely brilliant,as was Weis, Walburg.And Tucci (Harvey) who really played this to the hilt by the way he represented every abhorring aspect possible for a man to have: disrespect of women, desire to end the process of godlessness,usually in the girl's teen years before they reach full maturity, and needing to take them apart piece by piece. Also the level of design of the Inbetween was stunning as were the costumes and sets! Overall i thought this was an extremely well made movie and clearly a lot of thought has gone into this film. I think its a really nice representation of the book and i think Peter Jackson has made it his own though still managing to keep pretty true to the original novel, keeping in the most important bits to create this interesting and deep movie.4/5

_____________________________

"You listen to me now,i will find you and i will kill you!"

(in reply to TheGodfather)

Post #: 112

- 2/3/2010 1:19:18 AM

Archiekelly

Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2010

As a casual observer at best of times of films, I felt compelled to start an account with Empire, just so I could voice my opinion about how phenomenal this film is. It is a heart-wrenching tragedy from the opening scene to close, with the most incredible special effects and imagery one could ever imagine. Saoirse Ronan also merits special recognition for a stunning performance. This is the most imaginative and creative film anyone will see on the big screen for some time, and to deal with so many sensitive issues in a single film is also a triumph. Simply incredible.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 113

A Lovley Film (its a grower!!!) - 2/3/2010 8:09:00 PM

Timmyjay

Posts: 12
Joined: 14/6/2008

Stanley Tucci is superb, Soarise Ronan narrates this film beautifully and acts sublimly. Peter Jackson has created a wonderful film that creproduces a realistic picture of 70s America and brings some beautiful and disturbing images to the screen. I have read the book so i cannot comment, but this film has so many themes and incorparates so many genres, its leaves you emtionally unsure and unsettled. I think this film would benefit better of repaeted viewings, and what you can see is the love, detail and attention that is only given by a director and producing team of Mr Jackson's calibre.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 114

RE: A Lovley Film (its a grower!!!) - 2/3/2010 8:49:04 PM

Dr Lenera

Posts: 3447
Joined: 19/10/2005

This ambitious and to be honest slightly awkward combination of bereavement drama [a family coming to terms with the death of a daughter], psycho thriller [the killer who lives in the neightbourhood and may kill again], and heavenly fantasy with elaborate visuals[though strictly speaking Alice isn't actually in Heaven but in the 'In Between'] has it's flaws but is still a fascinating and admirable work. The first 30 mins, showing Alice's life and build up to her murder, is perfectly judged and actually very touching, then after she is killed we are treated to some stunning and often beautiful CG scapes of the In Between. This aspect has been criticised a lot but I'm a sucker for this kind of afterlife drama [I'm one of the five people who actually liked What Dreams May Come] and in this film it's great how bits and pieces from Earth turn up in the in Between in weird form. The Lovely Bones does stumble a bit with too many sequences of Alice narrating over monatges of pretty speciel effects [an aspect which I no doubt would have worked better in the book], and the rules of Heaven, Earth and the In Between don't appear to have been worked out and things sometimes get a bit random, though of course that's not always a bad thing. Things get rather schmaltzy towards the end, with distinct echoes of Ghost and other films, but it's still pretty moving. I was deeply touched, but then I'm a soppy wus who can often be found shedding a tear or two during a sad movie! Peter Jackson really shows his directing chops during a knife edge suspense sequence when Alice's sister goes into the killer's house looking for evidence,and the acting is all fine. Saiorise Rohman is truly affecting as Alice, Stanley Tucci is truly sick and perverted as the killer [mayeb nto a nice thing to say about Tucci!] and even Mark Wahlberg gives a performance. Brain Eno's ambient score is an odd choice but effective. The Lovely Bones doesn't quite hang together and could probably benefit from a bit longer and developing certain aspects and characters, but it's nonetheless a really intriguing, brave and though provoking film. Don't be fooled by the 12A rating, this is at times seriously dark stuff despite the lack of on screen violence. The censors seem to be getting ridiculously lenient these days!

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to Timmyjay)

Post #: 115

Badly done - 4/3/2010 3:39:13 PM

socheeky

Posts: 4
Joined: 22/1/2009

Amongst the most disappointing adaptations I've ever seen. Unstructured, schizophrenic and utterly un-engaging. The only thing it had in common with the book were character names and an icicle. It's supposed to be about a dead girl watching her family break and re-mend from heaven, not Hitchcock on magic mushrooms. Just because you're matey with Weta, doesn't mean you have to keep them in employment, Pete.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 116

RE: The Lovely Bones - 4/3/2010 4:21:45 PM

Al Swearengen

Posts: 403
Joined: 17/4/2007

seeing the movie inspired me to go out and buy the book straight away.

Can't people just accept a movie as being a kind of companion piece to the book? i will read the book and compare the two, but i'm just glad that Peter Jackson made the effort to take such a great story to the big screen.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 117

Not convinced. - 6/3/2010 11:24:20 AM

partybee

Posts: 94
Joined: 16/12/2009

Briefly; Pete's has no restraint with his visual imagination as he has Weta at his disposal; a few rubbish supporting actors, Nikki SooHoo #1 culprit; bad continuity, in particular the little brother who fails to grow an inch despite the time period the film takes place over; "never sentimental" my a$$, you guys can't see past your b0n3r for Pete; and I am not suggesting for a minute that the film-makers are rascist, but there was something un-Indian looking (more all-American) about Ray, a boy born to 1st generation Indian parents (shown in the film, I'm not just referencing the book here), my complaint being, they cast a pin-up not the most suitable actor.
It's been nearly a week since I saw the film and I had more grumbles than that but that'll do to get it out my system.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 118

RE: Not convinced. - 6/3/2010 10:33:10 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3143
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

The problem with Peter Jackson's adaptation is that it's not that it's a bad film, but rather it should have been a great one. From the outset it seems obvious that he was attracted to it by the possibilities of Weta-produced techno wizardry in creating the otherworld, rather than what made the novel such a success story � the depiction of a close-knit family falling apart and coming together again in the midst of the terrible tragedy. Given this then it's no surprise that some of the visualisations in creating the otherworld are extraordinary, and this is supported well with good performances from Ronan, Tucci and a strong score from Brian Eno. But Jackson's lack of interest in the Salmon family criminally undermines the emotional impact of the piece and sadly therefore, is a rather soulless experience. Weisz, Sarandon & Imperioli are given virtually nothing to do whilst Wahlberg's performance is solid but severely lacking in the emotional complexity required to truly carry the grieving father role. Not nearly as bad as some people have proclaimed but given the talents involved and the fact that this was by the man who made Heavenly Creatures (a beautiful emotionally complex family tragedy with directorial flair) this is a disappointment.

3/5

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to partybee)

Post #: 119

review :) - 7/3/2010 11:31:53 AM

ArraCrepsley

Posts: 13
Joined: 23/8/2009
From: Somewhere over the rainbow

Going to see it today, hopefully I'll agree with all the good reviews. Read the book already though

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 120